by Allan Norman
And all she was going on was her conviction that her very experienced team manager shouldn't be telling her it was acceptable to lie to the court. The emergence of her manager's criminal conviction came later. The fabrication of evidence came later still in the case. Could she feel confident that her professional career would survive intact? No.
When I first blogged about this case, what I said was, that the tabloids would inevitably jump on the fact of a conviction for conspiracy to murder. How right I was: here is The Sun and The Daily Mail. It wasn't only the tabloids: here is The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent.
And Community Care? Yes, Community Care too. They took my blog and posed the question, 'Should a conspiracy to murder bar you from social work'. You can answer that question if you want, in a poll on the home page. As I read the blogs, the outcome seems a foregone conclusion.
And Why? Because conspiracists to murder are not like us. They are deviant. Outsiders. We insiders don't do things like that. If we make rules that people with serious convictions cannot enter the profession, we can feel comfortable, as Becker so memorably observed, "applying those rules to particular people, and labeling them as outsiders."
Our task representing 'Social Worker C' was not so simple. What the judge describes as "the discrete issue" between our client and Lynda Barnes was not the latter's conviction for conspiracy to murder. Her conviction was a matter of public record. As I observed before, Community Care knew about it nearly a decade ago. Her registration as a social worker was also a matter of public record. The coincidence of the two seemed largely forgotten.
No-one seemed to be saying at the time that the two were fundamentally incompatible. How could a junior social worker predict with confidence the stream of opinions to that effect now being expressed?
Rather, it was matters of social work practice we had to address. There were concerns that will hardly surprise: excessive workloads for a newly qualified social worker; inappropriately complex cases among them; a lack of adequate supervision; a fear of seeking support. The kinds of practice issues that emerge from cases such as that of Victoria Climbié were needing to be revisited again. The suggestion of lying to the court and the manufacture of evidence are less familiar. But if that is reconstrued as disguising the authority's or one's own failings? Seeking to protect the local authority's position? Being economical with the actuality? Suddenly, a lot of 'insiders' are uncomfortable. It is harder to feel the same professional distance from these practices than from conspiracy to murder.
The judge in this case made clear that he did "not attach weight to Mrs. Barnes' conviction for conspiracy to murder in deciding the discrete issue". Just as well. Otherwise it would be too easy to conclude that the ignomy that followed for the team manager was because of her criminal conviction, rather than her poor social work practice - a conclusion reinforced all too readily by the headlines.
And Community Care? Yes, Community Care too. They took my blog and posed the question, 'Should a conspiracy to murder bar you from social work'. You can answer that question if you want, in a poll on the home page. As I read the blogs, the outcome seems a foregone conclusion.
And Why? Because conspiracists to murder are not like us. They are deviant. Outsiders. We insiders don't do things like that. If we make rules that people with serious convictions cannot enter the profession, we can feel comfortable, as Becker so memorably observed, "applying those rules to particular people, and labeling them as outsiders."
Our task representing 'Social Worker C' was not so simple. What the judge describes as "the discrete issue" between our client and Lynda Barnes was not the latter's conviction for conspiracy to murder. Her conviction was a matter of public record. As I observed before, Community Care knew about it nearly a decade ago. Her registration as a social worker was also a matter of public record. The coincidence of the two seemed largely forgotten.
No-one seemed to be saying at the time that the two were fundamentally incompatible. How could a junior social worker predict with confidence the stream of opinions to that effect now being expressed?
Rather, it was matters of social work practice we had to address. There were concerns that will hardly surprise: excessive workloads for a newly qualified social worker; inappropriately complex cases among them; a lack of adequate supervision; a fear of seeking support. The kinds of practice issues that emerge from cases such as that of Victoria Climbié were needing to be revisited again. The suggestion of lying to the court and the manufacture of evidence are less familiar. But if that is reconstrued as disguising the authority's or one's own failings? Seeking to protect the local authority's position? Being economical with the actuality? Suddenly, a lot of 'insiders' are uncomfortable. It is harder to feel the same professional distance from these practices than from conspiracy to murder.
The judge in this case made clear that he did "not attach weight to Mrs. Barnes' conviction for conspiracy to murder in deciding the discrete issue". Just as well. Otherwise it would be too easy to conclude that the ignomy that followed for the team manager was because of her criminal conviction, rather than her poor social work practice - a conclusion reinforced all too readily by the headlines.
Allan Norman is Principal Social Worker & Solicitor at Celtic Knot (www.celticknot.org.uk), an independent law firm and social work practice.
When will this country ever change??
Can anyone explain to me what would happen to social worker C if there has not been the rather 'comfortable' context of a court case on a "discreet issue"?
How can the ruthless practice of managers be exposed when covered or even supported from high above?
What safeguards are there for workers who are blamed as individuals for serious shortcomings of their employer?
How can it be justified in a democracy that there does not seem to be any external, independent scrutiny of such ready made categories from employers as "failed to follow advice", "did not adhere to boundaries"? Note that the Employment Tribunal (ET) focuses on procedures - not such issues of "professional judgement", and this can affect you soon.
The perversity of this rotten system seems obvious when children's services employ "sessional workers". By definition people on this status cannot be "integrated" (i.e.; sufficiently trained) and "controlled" (i.e. performance managed) and they have no access to the ET - a perfect framework to disguise exacerbated risks to children and massive service failure while saving costs! Note that this government has set the foundation for this 'inequality' which potentially breaches the EU Fixed-Term Contracts Directive 1999.
Further scandals will follow because all workers are dependent on the regime that has been established to perpetuate this system - the GSCC. 'Outsiders' are not able to understand what is going on, while the press likes to concentrate on the 'sexy bits'.
How "excellent" is the Laming report that now leads to Children's Services recruiting their chairs for local children safeguarding boards as they please? 500 pounds a day - go for it!